Our mission is to join individuals and groups working in different ways to ensure that our children live in a rational, sustainable world.
When enough people abandon the belief that war is inevitable,it will become unthinkable.
War is conducted for corporate Empire. Therefore,the first step to ending war is ending corporate control of the US government.
All social justice efforts lead to the end of war, the ultimate injustice. Those who work for justice are Soldiers For Peace.

COPY RIGHTS NOTICE

STEAL THIS BLOG!

This is the personal blog of Rick Staggenborg, MD. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the official positions of Take Back America for the People, an educational 501.c3 nonprofit established by Dr Staggenborg.

Feel free to reproduce any blogs by Dr Staggenborg without prior permission, as long as they are unedited and posted or printed with attribution and a link to the website.

For other blogs, please contact the author for permission.

Follow by Email

Pages

Saturday, February 27, 2016

WHICH WAY TO THE REVOLUTION?

It’s fascinating to follow the discussion about the “Sanders revolution,” a vague
phrase that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. Depending on your
point of view, the term may be one of hope or derision. For others, it just
provokes blank stares.

The idea of a political revolution inspires those who can see that today’s Democratic
Party is the captive of a system in which special interest money finances increasingly
expensive campaigns. In the post-Citizens United era, these people recognize
the historic significance of a candidate making a serious run for President
without the backing of corporations or wealthy individuals, and despite the
efforts of well-connected party leaders aghast that he is challenging one of
their own. Beyond setting an example of how to beat this corrupt system, Sanders
is out to change it. He
is increasingly making campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his campaign.
To many of his supporters, the “revolution” is defined as ending
a system where the wealthy determine who are viable candidates to
ostensibly represent us, while at the same time protecting their interests.

Those who see the need to address the corrupting influence of money in politics
find it hard to understand Democrats who can’t grasp why this prospect is
causing such excitement. Party stalwarts are puzzled by the backlash against “the
Establishment,” a term most Sanders supporters consider a euphemism for “corporatists.”
In their frustration at what appears to be willful ignorance, they lash out at
those who they should be trying to convince. Fortunately, Sanders’ popularity
continues to increase with the exposure that the corporate media can no longer
deny him. We will soon know if his momentum will continue to build fast enough
to carry him past Super Tuesday. But even if it does not, the “revolution” must
continue.

Critics of Sanders on the left argue that his campaign will actually undermine
progress toward more lofty goals, such as ending capitalism. Most commonly, this view holds that as long as
people support Democratic candidates there is no hope for changing the system
of which both major parties are part. Since Bernie has chosen to run as a
Democrat and to throw his support to Clinton should he not get the nomination,
so this reasoning goes, it is a no-win proposition. They then point out with
what often seems like grim satisfaction, “How will people ever realize that the
Duopoly is part of the problem?”

While they have a valid argument, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Voting
for either of the corporate-captured parties is a sham? To some extent that is
true, but what do we do about it? Third
parties are not viable, and given the state of leftist politics they will not
become so before global climate change renders the point moot. Mass civil disobedience?
In a country where the leading contender for the Presidency is the multimillionaire
wife of a former President? Get real.

The naivete of these arguments is matched only by the arrogance of those of their
proponents who call Sanders supporters naïve. The smug self-assurance of these
self-styled radicals masks a deep cynicism that prevents them from seeing how
the Sanders campaign might actually aid their cause. Those who scorn the idea
that he is the vanguard of a revolution in any meaningful sense of the term don’t
seem willing to consider how his campaign can advance the cause of a more expansive
transformation of the political system. In time-honored leftist tradition, they
are busy forming a circular firing squad to attack the Sanders campaign from a
position opposite that of Clinton backers who are also trying to shoot it down.

Those critics who are serious about to build a movement for what they consider genuine
revolution might want to consider the effect of dismissing millions of people
who are at least aware of the need for a dramatic change. It is irrelevant that
many may not fully comprehend what that means. It is impossible to create a
mass movement if you expect everyone to agree with you. Differences are bound
to arise and inflexibility causes schisms, destroying the solidarity on which
any movement depends. It is elementary strategic thinking to consider how to
work together where possible to achieve agreed upon objectives, even when there
is disagreement on strategy or ultimate goals. How in the world can anyone expect a mass
uprising of a population so steeped in the current system that half of those
who consider themselves “progressive” would consider voting for a candidate
backed by the finance industry, apparently believing her claims to be its sworn
enemy?

It is hard to see how anyone can argue with the idea that addressing the
corrupting influence of money in politics is a good way to organize a movement.
How many Americans would disagree with the notion that government doesn’t work
because those in power put the interests of the 1% over those of the rest of
us? The idea is so elementary that when Adbusters first wrote about Occupy, the
idea of a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance was the single
action item they suggested. Occupying Wall Street symbolized that the ultimate
power behind that money was the banking and finance industry that nearly
destroyed the economy (or is in the process of doing so) and with it, the middle
class (not to mention the poor). With a well-defined enemy and a clear
objective, the movement had a chance to become much more than a symbolic
protest, The problem was that Occupy activists refused to prioritize goals,
making strategic political action impossible.

Campaign finance reform is not the answer to all our problems, but it is the
first step to finding one. If Sanders were to make this point clear, he might
just convert a few skeptics. So far, he has focused on a promise to vet any
candidates to the Supreme Court according to their willingness to overturn Citizens
United. While laudable, Clinton has made the same promise. Despite the fact
that this is yet another example of a promise to work on an issue she has
avoided in the past and the fact that she depends on the system she now vows to
destroy, her supporters trust her to keep it. That’s why Sanders should also be
talking about his
proposed constitutional amendment intended to end the doctrine that money spent
to influence elections is protected speech.

The key to using this to build a movement is that as President, he could
promote the idea of voting only
for candidates who would support such an amendment, as suggested by Move to
Amend, as well as other reforms like the American
Anti-Corruption Act. For those unfamiliar with the latter, it would address
a variety of other ways that special interest money can influence politics, including
putting limits on lobbying to include closing the revolving door (or at least
significantly narrowing it). Keeping the need to address the corruption of the
system in the forefront of American consciousness cannot but help the effort to
get Americans to sustain pressure on Congress to put the needs of people over
profit. The only way to advance any aspect of the progressive agenda is to
first address the corruption that has created the problems in the first place.

The Sanders “revolution” is just the first phase of the kind of fundamental
change in American politics that can put us back on the path toward true
representative democracy. How far we go will be up to us.

Interviews with Dr Staggenborg

Soldiers For Peace International

Join Us On Facebook!

About Us

OUR GOAL: The eradication of war by restoring democracy in America.

OUR MISSION: To challenge the US Congress to put the needs of the people above those of their plutocratic sponsors. We can only establish democracy in America and the world by working together to abolish the "rights" of corporations and those who control them to determine the collective destiny of the Peoples of the United States and of the world.

THE PROBLEM: is not that the American government does not work. It works fine for those who own it, just not for the people of America. It is corporate control of Congress that permits the enslavement of Peoples of other nations and ultimately, Americans as well.

Now that the global economic elite are bringing their tools of subjugation to the United States, we must fight back together to ensure that the hope of government of the People, by the People and for the People does not perish from the Earth.

Together, we can mend the social fabric of a broken nation and assure liberty and justice for all the Peoples of the planet we share.

War and lack of health care are symptoms of the same disease: corporate control of the US government. That is why we must take back America for the people by working to pass a Constitutional amendment to get corporate money out of elections and abolish corporate personhood. This is the essential first step to creating true representative government.

Until Americans learn to fight their common enemy instead of each other, there is no reason to expect real change. We must put aside our differences to fight the imposition of a corporate New World Order if we are going to ensure that our children grow up in a rational, sustainable world where war is but a memory.